'Theres no scientific consensus that life is important!'

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yes, but that's hardly a scientific consensus, now is it?

One has to wonder, though, just how the atheists can trust that the chemical accident of their brain is supplying them with valid knowledge that their lives are important to them.

Obviously because they are not deluded that there is anything else to trust.

That's not a reason of finding importance, but merely a lipshot toward JetLag.

I would say life is important because it is the only arrangement of matter in the universe that can replicate itself and react to its environment. Also life (in our case) has become aware of itself, how it came about, and is in the process of trying to understand the universe it resides in. So I think it is important in an objective sense.

Sand, do you say that your life is important to you in a kind of solipsistic way? How about the basis from a scientific stand-point. Is life important because it tries so hard to survive? I honestly have no opinion on this one way or the other, I just wanted to see what other people thought. So far, Sands answer is my favourite

If you step on ants, you probably agree with that statement.

Let's face it. We don't hold life in high regard because we have no qualms crushing it when it bothers us. Short of killing a pet or another human, life is easily expendable for the vast majority of humans.

So, unless the process of life is so rare in the universe (say less than 1% of all worlds) that it must be protected wherever it's found, I could see the eradication of a primordial world for its resources being looked at as acceptable.

What are their options? Can you distrust your own brain? No, because the impulse comes from the brain, and thus taking the option of distrust requires distrusting one's distrust.

We do as we do because it works, however, it is obvious that many minds that exist cannot be trusted.

What is this "scientific way" you feel I should respond to? What kind of science would exist without life? The whole damned Earth could disappear in a very minor cataclysm and the universe would be unaffected. We are just beginning to discover that there are planets and the number of galaxies, not to speak of stars and planets is beyond our current conception. Such nonsense in this thread!

Last edited by Sand on 21 Aug 2010, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, it is based on a joke. I guess I don't really have any method or anything, but how about you being the smarter one help me either decide on some kind of method or what? Besides, that whole 'there's such a huge universe' thing is kind of the point. Given how massive the universe is, how are you supposed to judge how important anything is? Like you say, a very minor cataclysm could obliterate the Earth and everything we hold dear. How are we supposed to decide what's important in such a fleeting and temporary place?
On a serious note, how is life supposed to be important when all the life we know is so easily destroyed?

In terms of supply and demand if nothing else, on a universal scale.

And neither you nor anyone else has the faintest idea as to how common life is in the universe.

And you do? You said it yourself, all of Earth could be destroyed and the universe would be unaffected. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Yeah, including you. To claim there is no other life in the universe is touted as an appeal to ignorance, yet it seems equally fallacious to claim the opposite when there is neither evidence against nor for extraterrestrial life.

If Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the universe, then life is not common enough to have any effect on the universe. Therefore, destroying this planet would change nothing for the universe at large.

If life is common, then we're just a small part of the web of life in the universe. Therefore, destroying this planet would change nothing for the universe at large.

Accept this basic fact: To the vast majority of the physical universe, we are trivial, at best. I find it relaxing to accept that I don't have to worry about what's going on around, say, Arcturus, because I'm just not that important. (I am curious about what's going on around, for instance, Tau Ceti, because that's a G-class star, one which might possibly host a planet that either has Earthlike life, or that we can use. However, I don't have to worry about it...)

Actually, if life is common, that means that life is in high supply and conversely that habitable planets would be in high demand. If life is rare though, then it's value is much higher than if it is ubiquitous. Also, any planets that may be habitable would have little or no competition in colonization.